“The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.” 

Lawrence M. Krauss in A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing


Well, the first antidote would be to take an anti-arrogance pill, but I doubt he has too many on hand. The really amazing thing is how some cocky scientist can make statements like this and the average Joe and Jane just accept them without blinking. So let’s unpack this one...

  1. Krauss is actually able to trace the atoms in our bodies back to stars? Can he even name the stars they came from? Wow! What a guy!
  2. So a star exploded and just the “right stuff” ended up here on Earth to become you and me! How fortunate!
  3. Poetic? Maybe. Science? Not.
  4. So all those elements just kinda got together and made people? Quite an accomplishment with no purpose or direction! And here you are, Mr. Krauss, to tell us a nice story about how it all just kinda sorta happened that way. After all, we’re here, so, Poof! there’s the proof!
  5. Yep, those stars were mighty kind to explode so you could be invented!
  6. Ahh, now we get cutesy with Jesus. Try doing that in your classroom with Mohammed. You might lose your little head instead of garnering laughter like the YouTube version of this quote shows. I’d be more concerned about Jesus forgetting ME than me forgetting Him if I were you.

And while we’re at it, Mr. Krauss is also dead sure that the universe came from nothing. So we came from nothing, we’re the result of some dead stars, and we’re soon going to be dead and that’s it. Now tell me, what exactly is Mr. Krauss fighting for? What is the point of his life or anyone else’s for that matter?

(P.S. I had a copy of his book, but considered it worthless dribble so got rid of it.)


"The universe is simply too large for me to easily accept that only here, only on Earth, has senseless chemistry organized itself into sentient beings.

And so I continue to do SETI [Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence]."

Seth Shostak, Confessions of An Alien Hunter. National Geographic, 2009, p. 298.


The book itself seems to be an apologetic for SETI, an appeal to the masses to believe in alien life so we can keep this useless old jalopy running and keep the funds coming in. It’s easy to see that this is part of the religion of Evodelusion. Despite the fact that there’s not a shred of evidence that evolution from nothing to everything ever occurred on Earth, or that “senseless chemistry” can actually organize itself into sentient beings with no intelligent input, Shostak appeals to those very notions to argue that there’s got to be other life forms “out there somewhere” and we’re going to find them.

What is really intriguing about the book is how much imagination masquerading as science is involved in Shostak’s thinking. We move from one imaginary scenario to the next. Oh, and of course “fundamentalists” are skewered because “they” for the most part do not believe in extraterrestrial life, so “if” it were to be discovered it would be a major blow to them. Naturally, that appears to be more the motivation involved here than any science. Another nail in God’s coffin, or at least we hope so. He also fears that, if contact were made, “fundamentalists” would chalk it up to a Satanic deception.

Count me in with the “fundamentalists.” We’re not going to find ET. Because ET doesn’t exist. Because Evolution is not true, so therefore if life did not evolve here, it didn’t evolve anywhere else.

However, Satan, the great deceiver, just might come up with a plan to try to put that nail in God’s coffin. He’s tried that trick before, but the nails were in the hands and feet that time. For a short while it looked like he might have had the victory there. God was dead, it appeared. But as Satan well knows, and as he found out that time, and will find out again, appearances can be deceiving.


"For all we know, earthly life may be the only life there is. I personally judge it to be more likely than not that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our universe, outside our solar system. I do not exclude the possibility that we are the only intelligent beings; however, if I adopt that assumption, there is really nothing more to say, whereas the opposite view leads to interesting trains of thought."

Ronald N. Bracewell. Intelligent Life in Outer Space. W. H. Freeman & Co., 1975, p. 15.


This is where "modern" science has brought us. The ONLY reason anyone would even consider the existence of ET life is because of their faith in the religion of Evodelusion. Just look at what he says.

"I personally judge it to be more likely..." Based on WHAT exactly? Well, as the book makes clear, based on his faith that the universe popped into existence from nothing and stardust somehow turned into people. If it happened here (which it did not) then it can happen anywhere, right?

"There is really nothing more to say..." REALLY? You mean we can't study the universe, Earth and living things on Earth without believing in fictitious green men from other planets?

"...Interesting trains of thought." Translation: Fantasy stories about alien life. Science fiction, in other words. We can IMAGINE whatever worlds and life forms we want, and who's going to say we're wrong? They just MIGHT be out there!

Yes, folks, this is the modern "science" of imagination.


"Even if you look out at the universe and all the stars, our solar system - all the order that is there... all the different interactions that are there... I don't believe that's something that just happened by chance.

"Nobody can explain where everything came from and how it all got here. You just take a look around and you see the complexity in so many things and the detail in so many small things; how the simplest cell works, up to a tree, the human being; just the miracle of seeing our children born; and you say, 'This just didn't happen by chance.'...

"If you take a look at a system like the space shuttle... it didn't happen by chance and it doesn't approach the complexity of a human being.

"It'd almost seem you have to have more faith to accept that it happened by chance than to accept that God created the universe."

Rick Husband, Commander of the Columbia Space Shuttle STS-107, who is now in Heaven with the God he honored with his life and work.

Since someone saw fit to send this tired Epicurus quote to me, I'm happy to post it here, with the Antidote.


  1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
  2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
  3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
  4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


I believe the biggest thrill that Atheists get out of quoting this is that they're impressing themselves by quoting Epicurus. So, let's respond, point by point, and wow, maybe somebody will quote ME to impress people some day! Oh boy!

Ok, maybe not. But here goes...

  1. 1,2. God is both willing and able to prevent evil, provided a way to escape it, and will, in the future, eradicate it from the universe. Man is able to prevent evil, but he doesn't always do so, now does he? Did Epi have anything to say about that? Apparently not. Nor did he provide for us his definition of "evil" which, without some standard upon which to base our judgment, varies from person to person. For example, apparently some political leaders did not consider mass murder to be evil if it justified their goals. We all have an easy time justifying our own actions, don't we?

    God permitted evil to enter the world because that's exactly what man wanted. He forewarned our first parents, Adam and Eve, of the consequences of disobedience, and they wound up paying the price, "knowing good and evil," just as He said they would (which gives us confidence that his promises, as that to eradicate evil in the future, are sure). Every one of us would have made the same choice as Adam and Eve, as also Epicurus and the Atheists certainly demonstrate very well, because we don't like God telling us what to do or not to do. So, Epicurus and the rest of us are reaping the consequences of our bad choices, and our rebellion.

    The fact that evil exists in no way limits God's omnipotence. The fact that He allows evil demonstrates His omnipotence. Strike One for Epi.
  2. 3. Evil cometh from our rebellion and refusal to listen to God. Strike Two for Epi.
  3. 4. We call Him "God" because that's what He is, regardless of His will. If I start a fire and am neither able nor willing to put it out, that doesn't change who I am one iota. However, God did not start the fire. We did. And until we come to terms with the fact that WE are the problem not God, we will continue to spout off ignorant accusations like those of Epicurus, because it makes us feel intellectually superior to do so. Strike Three.

Sorry, Epi, you're outta here.


If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Ronald Reagan

Two of my favorite poems:

Three Monkeys

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the others, "Now listen you two, there's a certain rumor that can't be true:
That man descended from our noble race. Why, the very idea is a dire disgrace!

"No monkey ever deserted his wife, starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you've never known a mother monk to leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another 'til they scarcely know who is their mother.

"Another thing you'll never see: A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree,
Forbidding other monkeys to taste and letting the coconuts go to waste.
Why, if I built a fence around a coconut tree starvation would force you to steal from me.

"And another thing a monk won't do: Go out at night and get on a stew
Or use a gun, club, or knife to take some other monkey's life.
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss. But brother, he didn't descend from us!"


by a million
wings of fire-
the rocket tore a tunnel
through the sky-
and everybody cheered.

only by a thought from God-
the seedling
urged its way
through thicknesses of black-
and as it pierced
the heavy ceiling of the soil-
and lauched itself
up into outer space -

--Marcie Hans


For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.

Aldous Huxley


Personally, I believe Huxley was a lot more concerned with sexual vis-a-vis political liberation. Once again we see how much of a focus there is on sex, which is often the motivation for people denying or deserting God. God created sex, but He also set boundaries within which it is appropriate to engage in sex, and consequences when we don't respect those boundaries. The consequences are obvious. While we may momentarily enjoy what Hebrews 11:25 calls "the passing pleasures of sin," the end results are often broken relationships, mistrust, feelings of being used or disrespected, unwanted pregnancies, diseases, and sometimes even death.


The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent - slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.

H. L. Mencken


The TRUTH is, that that statement is a complete LIE, but of course for an Atheist that shouldn't matter. Once again we have an anti-theist pontificating on theology about which he knew little beyond his biases. Not only does Genesis 3 say nothing about the serpent being the "father of knowledge" (though no doubt he's the father of the Atheist's lack thereof), the issue wasn't "knowledge," with which Adam and Eve were obviously gifted, but rather the "knowledge of good and evil," about which Mencken could have learned some lessons but apparently did not. And serpents are only "slimy, sneaking and abominable" to those who are afraid of them without reason. As for the "apologist for slavery" bit, that's the usual canard for those who want to direct attention away from their own beliefs that have enslaved (and murdered) more people than any "religion" ever did. Mencken knew only "American-style" slavery and nothing about what the Biblical term refers to, as nowhere does the Bible condone American- style slavery, and in fact it does just the opposite. First Corinthians 7:20-23 speaks to those who BECAME Christians while slaves, and tells them that if they can they should seek their freedom. "Masters" are commanded to treat those in their employ as fellow humans, with respect. As usual, the Skeptics try to twist the truth in order to delude the gullible. Oh, and had Mencken studied his Christian theology, he'd have known that the TRUE Church is not an "institution."


"I could think of things I never thought before..."

The Scarecrow in "The Wizard of Oz" lamenting that he needed a brain.


To those of us who have brains, it should be obvious that they didn't create themselves.


"When we believe ourselves in possession of the only truth, we are likely to be indifferent to common everyday truths."

Eric Hoffer


Ok, let's analyze this one. First, of course, Hoffer would consider his statement to be the "only truth" about the issue he is addressing, or he would not have said it. Second, he assumes that there is no "only truth," which is also true according to him. Third, we need to ask ourselves exactly what Hoffer would define as "truth," that is, what is his authority for what is or is not true. Finally, we need to ask why being in possession of "the only truth" should cause us to be indifferent to "everyday truths," which would be a subset of "the only truth," would they not?


"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure..."

Clarence Darrow


Yes, actually you DO pretend to know, that is why you are ASSERTING that one cannot be sure of God's existence, and that those who claim to be sure are ignorant. More illogic from the skeptics. YOU are not sure, so that means NOBODY is, right?


"According to the dictionary, an agnostic is "a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a god or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena." The emphasis should be on "thinks," in other words it is a subjective opinion or feeling that could be mistaken. There are actually more people who think that God exists. Who is really right? We all need to search diligently to be sure that our subjective thoughts are correct or not. Have you asked yourself whether you are an "agnostic" because you had a bad experience, or judge all Christians as hypocrites, or you want to be the "boss" of your own life, etc.? These objections are all subjective and should not enter into an honest, open search of whether God exists."

Michael Oard


"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

"The atoms of our bodies are traceable to stars that manufactured them in their cores and exploded these enriched ingredients across our galaxy, billions of years ago. For this reason, we are biologically connected to every other living thing in the world. We are chemically connected to all molecules on Earth. And we are atomically connected to all atoms in the universe. We are not figuratively, but literally stardust."

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Antidote (in Tyson's own words):

"So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random... So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be." [Emphasis added]


"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Richard Dawkins


So let's see, Dawkins died and came back to life to tell us there's nothing after death so we have his own evidence that there's no afterlife? Oh, and he also observed the evolution from bacteria to Bob he so fervently preaches, so he doesn't believe that by faith either.


"Follow the evidence, wherever it leads... " [and regarding DNA...] "...the unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life... intelligence must have been involved... I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature... As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done."

Antony Flew


"We are each free to believe what we want, and it's my view that the simplest explanation is there is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful."

Stephen Hawking


"Simplest" is the operative word here. That takes away the need to think about it or investigate whether it's really true. Kind of like saying the "simplest" explanation for the murder is that somebody died. Just let Hawking do your thinking for you. And of course, we should believe Hawking when he asserts that no one created or directs our universe and that "this one life" is all we have, since he obviously is omniscient. "Probably" no heaven doesn't sound too certain either. These are sad, pathetic words, devoid of hope. Profound realization, indeed.


Are you starting to get the feeling for who's REALLY god in the Atheist scheme of things yet?

Let's hear some more... How about this quote for the Atheist "hope?"


"There is no God. There's no heaven. There's no hell. There are no angels. When you die, you go in the ground, the worms eat you."

Madalyn Murray O'Hair


None necessary.


"All thinking men are atheists."

Ernest Hemingway


Shouldn't that read, "All men who think they're thinking men..."? Hemingway blew his brains out with a shotgun. One can only wonder what he was thinking when he did that.


"Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods."

Christopher Hitchens


Ahh, another "thinking man," who even had the ability to enter the minds of dogs and cats and tell us that they think like humans! And if God provides the Atheist with food, water and shelter, the Atheist thinks HE is a god and has no need to thank the Provider.


"I am an atheist, out and out. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he does not that I don't want to waste my time."

Isaac Asimov


Yes, writing fiction stories is a much more important pursuit than "wasting time" questioning where you will spend eternity. Note that he "strongly suspected" God didn't exist. Let's see. Would you not investigate whether someone you loved was in danger just because you "strongly suspected" they were not? Would you eat or drink something you were not sure about because someone else "strongly suggested" there was nothing wrong with it?